No, a very good technical reason. PV systems can be quickly installed and
running and their peak production kicks in to help match that peak air
con load on really hot days. These days are giving pollies the bejesus
because widespread brownouts are political suicide.

If you can afford the loan interest, do it now.
When the aussie dollars rises against against the US, add on a battery
pack and you will not need that generator.

Curr3ently,well until July at least, the government is d=giving $8K rebate for a
1kW system if the gross income for the household is under $100K. At the current
prices a 1kW system comprising Sharp 175W panels and a Fronius 2kW (pk) grid tie
inverter can be installed for around $15.6K. After the RECS rebate and the gov't
$8K rebate are deducted the owner forks out about $5.7K.

Now the big thing is that after July 09, as I understand it, it is mooted that
electricity supply authorities will pay the owner approx 4 times the domestic
selling rate for ALL electricity produced. Yes, that is gross production, not
just the amount you pump back ito the grid. Considering the price of electricity
is set to double (at least in WA) over the next few years, it will only take
about 5 - 6 years to recoup the out of pocket outlay, and after that you won't
be actually paying a lot for any electricity you do consume.

You sure will.
Ask yourself this question.
If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
you think the power company gets this money from.
Dont come from the tooth fairy.

:On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:21:20 GMT, Ross Herbert
:
:>wrote:
:>:>:terryc wrote::>:> Any recommendations?
:>::>:Yes. Don't do it. It's a huge waste of money.
:>:
:>:Sylvia.
:>:>Why do you say that?
:>:>Curr3ently,well until July at least, the government is d=giving $8K rebate for
a:>1kW system if the gross income for the household is under $100K. At the
current:>prices a 1kW system comprising Sharp 175W panels and a Fronius 2kW (pk) grid
tie:>inverter can be installed for around $15.6K. After the RECS rebate and the
gov't:>$8K rebate are deducted the owner forks out about $5.7K.
:>:>Now the big thing is that after July 09, as I understand it, it is mooted that:>electricity supply authorities will pay the owner approx 4 times the domestic:>selling rate for ALL electricity produced. Yes, that is gross production, not:>just the amount you pump back ito the grid. Considering the price of
electricity:>is set to double (at least in WA) over the next few years, it will only take:>about 5 - 6 years to recoup the out of pocket outlay, and after that you won't:>be actually paying a lot for any electricity you do consume.
:
:
:You sure will.
:Ask yourself this question.
:If the power company has to pay you and every other person with solar
:on their roof 4 times what the power is actually worth,then where do
:you think the power company gets this money from.
:Dont come from the tooth fairy.

They do it by not having to upgrade distribution transformers as local power
demand increases. If a more PV installations are producing power for the grid it
saves the power companies quite a lot of money.

Actually they can save even more by simply upgrading the power lines and
transformers as necessary, the increased revenue from extra power sales and
extra billing charges more than pays for it. The only savings to the power
company come when the government uses taxpayers money to subsidise PV
installations, which is not included in the power companies expenses.
IF the government used the money for large scale PV arrays instead, the REAL
benefits to the nation would be greater.

Except that upgrading transformers and power lines does not in itself
result in increased power usage, it just reduces the probability that
the system will be overloaded during relatively rare load peaks. Because
those peaks are rare, the extra revenue obtained by avoiding power
outages doesn't amount to much.

However, it can be noted that the spot market price for power during
those peaks can get very high. Avoiding having to buy that power (which
is then sold at a loss) would be an attractive proposition at the right
price.

There probably is a point at which local generation capacity makes sense
if the distributor is required to avoid outages. Presumably the
electricity distributors' accountants have run the numbers, and
concluded that that point hasn't been reached.

While I'm inclined to agree that large scale PV arrays would be more
economic than piece mail domestic installations, they are still an
expensive way of generating power.

Of course not, that's why it now follows demand rather than anticipates it
as was usually the case when all power supply was under government control.

The required supply margins don't change that much, and supply
infrastructure does need to be maintained in any case (even though the
private companies try to avoid that until absolutely necesary)

Especially when the taxpayers are footing the bill for PV subsidies, right!

At the moment yes, but mostly because the full cost to the nation and
environment of brown coal generation is not applied. This will change in
time. The relative benefits of roof top Vs large scale solar, wind and other
renewable source generation will not however IMO.

Yep, you are spot on. The engineera who ran the various systems
understood this and had money put aside for this purpose. Until, in NSw
at least, the accountants decided that it should be handed over to
consolidated revenue and was promptly spent.

The first is that is the cost of borrowing to build power stations.
Since the electricity industry was established in Western Australia it
has been dogged by massive debt. A large portion of a WA power consumers
bill goes towards paying interest on massive loans.

The second is the saving on not having to install peaking plant, which
is rarely used and usually consumes expensive fuels. Western Power
looses money big time when it has to burn oil. (Diesel)

Thirdly, it's becoming very difficult to meet environmental standards.
Getting rid of millions of tons of acidic ash and carbon dioxide is not
easy, not to mention the massive water consumption. There is presently a
bunfight going on in WA over who will get access to water in the southwest.

Historicaly power stations have been welcomed as a sign of progress, but
now they're seen as polluting monsters and have a "not in our back
yard" problem. A small biomass plant that was to be built in the
southwest has met stiff opposition from wine and fruit producers who
worry it will damage their produce.

You certainly would if the numbers say that it saves you money, even if
it costs the taxpayer and other customers a bundle. The main concern
would be that the rules could be changed later, turning what was meant
to be a nice little earner into a financial liability.

Which might happen. If the rules are so generous that installing PV
cells on the roof is a no brainer, then everyone would be doing it, and
the grid generators would become suppliers of last resort during the
day. They cannot afford to operate like that, so something would have to
give.

Always the case, but when the government/taxpayer subsidies are large
enough, as with PV, solar water, LPG fuel conversion, and even insulation,
shower heads, rain water tanks, and CFL replacement in many areas, the
majority of the risk is borne by taxpayers rather than the individual.
That is NOT a good thing IMO when the benefits have not been fully costed
and are mainly just a political stunt.

Yep, the subsidies will go fairly soon or the government will go broke!
But that was announced ages ago in any case.